www.gravitywheel.com has been updated

[John Collins]

For those who are interested I have finally published an abbreviated account of where I have got to in my search for a solution to Bessler's wheel at www.gravitywheel.com. I have stated on many occasions that I knew the principle and also the design of the mechanism, well now you can see if I am telling the truth or just another sad deluded.

I must just give credit to professor Hal Puthoff for pointing me in what I regard as the right direction (some of you will think its the wrong direction!) by suggesting parametric oscillation might hold the key and also Scott Ellis of this neighborhood for putting a lot of stuff up about the same subject (too long to write it again!).

I look forward to seeing what you guys think, and I have acquired an exceedingly thick skin through having an uncensored blog, so don't hold back.

JC

[martin]

Hey John , hat down that you really made it public ...i dont think I would do it my self ... am too greeedy. :)

Now I just have to read it all over few time patiantly to not miss anything.

Big kudos and respect to you John ... let it be all what we are looking for.

Take care

Martin

[AB Hammer]

Greetings JC

Well you have now posted it, and curiosity is finally answered. Thanks and kudos for posting JC,

Alan

[triplock]

Hello John,

I must congratulate you on your hypothesis and you willingness to share, finally.

IMHO though, and playing devil's advocate, I don't go along with your position as it is very subjective and ultimately just another individual interpretation. I also disagree strongly with the wording of you website. You are inter-mingling witness statements, Bessler's own clues and your's to create a hybrid version of the wheel & history that may ultimately, only exist in your head, but your intentional phrasing purports it all to be fact.

Also, the title 'Bessler-Collins Gravity Wheel' is very arrogant of you. IMHO, I feel that you should strike 'Bessler' from the Header, as I think this cash-cow has been well and truly milked.From now on, I will call all my failed designs 'Bessler-Triplock Gravity Wheels' as it had a certain kudos to an otherwise duff concept. Might help me sell a few books though containg a re-hash or others.

Like thousands before us John, yours is a wheel design that doesn't work no matter how it is dressed up in a factual 'Trevor-esk' website.

Moreover, let's not forget that your willingness now to open source is not as a result of some moment of altuitism, but out of a need for you to perpetuate the myth to the world that you have an inside track or insight to all things Bessler, even after years of unsuccessful builds. Must have been humbling.

Anyway, I await for your new novel, 'John Collins, Bessler's Secret Love Child' to appear on Amason for £10.99 ;-)

Saying that, we all love a good story.........

Fiction of course.

BR.

Chris

PS. Your wheel design is almost a carbon copy of dated sketches I had from 4 years ago. LOL

[LustInBlack]

John, your concept is interesting and have merit.

But, I believe you are bending quite a lot the writings of Bessler to make them match your interpretation..

You can interpret every MTs or pages of Bessler writings in an infinite number of ways to make them match any possible design.. There's no proof in there, I'm sorry!

But your pumping action swinging dual-weight mechanism have potential.. It might not work, but it's an out of the box idea that is worth pursuing.. You might have to call it John Collins Wheel and never mention Bessler in there..

Thanks for posting your idea.. I believe you could have done so a while ago on the forum like many of us...

[path_finder]

Dear John,
Many thanks for publishing the result of your examinations.
There are so few people here sharing their discoveries.
Here are my first comments:

1. If the 'parametric pendulum' still remains one of the potential source of energy for acting a gravity wheel, it is not the single way.
If we go further with this design I'm suspicious about the fact you limit the power arc between 3:00 and 6:00.
The Java applet (for memory here:http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/phys ... meiro.html)
clearly demonstrates that the variations of length must take place at 6:00 and 12:00.
By the way the requested path of the weights instead could be this one: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=7264.
To do the job in accordance with these rules I suggested a mechanical design earlier in the same topic (unfortunately not full tested, may be I'm faulty).

2. IMHO the number of weights is irrelevant: when you got the basic mechanical principle for the primemover you can implement it with 3, 4, 5 or any number of rods.
I don't believe the fact using FIVE rods will give you more torque by locating two rods in the same power arc (the better torque is given only because there are more active weights only).
In addition I think the best ratio mass/efficiency can be obtained with a device of order three (the order two has an overlapping limitation).

3. Your suggestion for a 'parametric pendulum' based device, built with some levers is perhaps the solution used by Bessler.
But don't forget the most simplest principle for a gravity wheel: the permanent eccentricity of the main COG, where a mechanism linked with the rotation of the wheel permanently relocates the COG on the 3:00 radius. In that case the parametric pendulum is not involved.
IMHO the Tesla patent is very close of a more universal solution where the COG of a multiparted object is rotating.

Some other comments after further studies.
In any case many thanks again.

[justalabrat]

Like thousands before us John, yours is a wheel design that doesn't work no matter how it is dressed up in a factual 'Trevor-esk' website.

Moreover, let's not forget that your willingness now to open source is not as a result of some moment of altuitism, but out of a need for you to perpetuate the myth to the world that you have an inside track or insight to all things Bessler, even after years of unsuccessful builds. Must have been humbling.

Anyway, I await for your new novel, 'John Collins, Bessler's Secret Love Child' to appear on Amason for £10.99 ;-)

That's just mean!

Justalabrat

[John Collins]

I did have reservations about calling it the bessler-collins gravitywheel and I certainly wasn't feeling arrogant, I just wanted a name to show that although it was basically my interpretation, it was based on Bessler's works. But if you think smacks of arrogance I'll alter it. Its not that important.

Moreover, let's not forget that your willingness now to open source is not as a result of some moment of altuitism, but out of a need for you to perpetuate the myth to the world that you have an inside track or insight to all things Bessler, even after years of unsuccessful builds. Must have been humbling.

That's utter rubbish triplock, I have always said that if I succeeded I would open source and not patent. I just decided to open source my ideas now because I hadn't succeeded so far and time is passing us all by. Do I need to point out that eveyone here has had years of unsuccessful builds?

I agree that I have bent some of Bessler's writings, LIB, to match my descriptions, and in fact I added the last page at the last minute, wanting to try to tie in some of his other stuff and then found it quite unconvincing myself, so I might delete that page and leave the rest as it is.

I could have posted it a while ago but I had hopes of making some further progress with a Pop wheel first.

Path_finder, thanks for the references, I'm not limiting the power arc between three and six, just pointing out that it is most effective between those points and in fact I stated that in practice it would work best between twelve and six.

I still think five mechanisms is important because Bessler clearly thought so. I'm sure that a PoP wheel could be made using only three but the 'swing' power of two weights operating within the power arc must be more effective in my opinion.

I agree with you that permanent eccentricity of the COG is the simplest principle but as I showed, the path of the primary weight is just such a path so you get both principles, parametric oscillation too. operating at the same time.

[Grimer]

Thanks for your revelations, John.

I agree that the action of the Kiiking riders is the key to understanding how energy is obtained Ersatz Gravity (EG) system by the action of Newtonian Gravity (NG).

What it really needs is someone to model a Kiiking Rider with all the articulation that a human provides since there are two forms of action that need to be studied, the up and down motion of the rider (parametric pendulum) and the rotational motion, i.e the more traditional swing motion of a seated child. I suspect Kiikingvriders intuitively supply some optimum mixture of the two.

Someone used to designing and building radio controlled aeroplanes would be the ideal candidate to investigate this. Like the Kiiking Riders he might intuitively arrive as the optimum manipulation of his input levers to the point where gravity takes over.

It seems to me that the essential interaction between NG and EG mus be between 12 and 3 o'clock since this is where Newtonian Gravity is acting against EG, or CF if you prefer. The earlier action between 9 and 12 must, of course, be suppressed by locking articulation.

Following discussions with my builder on our closed forum I can now see that traditional physics is correct in maintaining that a continuous supply of energy can not be obtained from the Newtonian gravitational field. Newtonian Gravity is merely acting as a catalyst, a trigger for the release of EG energy. The energy of the Bessler Wheel is being released from EG, not from NG. This can be seen more clearly in the 3 dimensional equivalent of the Bessler Wheel. If the Bessler Wheel is viewed as a EG rotary internal combustion engine then the 3D equivalent is the Bessler inverse Turbine.

I think Jim Mich is the foremost promoter of this view. Indeed, if I understand him correctly he believes that EG energy can be released by catalysts other than gravity.

[alexjrgreen]

@pathfinder: the two weights can't be opposite all the way round - they're only opposite when one is at 12 o'clock and the other at 6 o'clock. The rest of the time one is accelerating and the other decelerating, so the angle between them is not 180 degrees. Carefully re-read your old post, then look at Preston Stroud's Sjack Abeling replication. The answer to your question what should be the mechanism able to animate the seesaw at the center of the plate? is "a ramp"...

[Tarsier79]

Gday John

I see no problem calling it "Bessler-Collins Gravity Wheel", as it is a Bessler-inspired design by Collins.

Seeing another view on the matter is always interesting. Keep up the good work.

[greendoor]

Thank you for sharing John - your research and insight is very much appreciated. I guess we all have our personal theories on whether this would work or not, and - if so - where the energy might come from.

This design seems plausible to me, because it depends on a faster rise time for the weights than fall time.

[Reticon]

cheers, and thank you. Will review as time permits. I will remind everyone that NO ONE has demonstrated a working device and we are therefore all pretty much just as wrong. Only a few are brave enough to demonstrate. We're all wrong until the device can be demonstrated.

[alexjrgreen]

If John is right, and bearing in mind the substantial contributions here by Scott, Jim and Pathfinder, then it seems possible that Sjack Abeling has a workable wheel. If Preston could adapt his model so that the bottom weight rising on the ramp pulls down the top weight instead of trying to lift it, we would have an answer.

[alexjrgreen]

Assuming the above, Bessler could have used a heavy metal ramp hanging from the axle inside the wheel. That would have produced the reported knocking sound as each weight hit the ramp and was forced to rise.